Creeping conditionality in the UK From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Dwyer PJ

httpdxdoiorg101353cjs20040022

Title Creeping conditionality in the UK From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Authors Dwyer PJ

Type Article

URL This version is available at httpusirsalfordacuk12778

Published Date 2004

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford Where copyright permits full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read downloaded and copied for nonshycommercial private study or research purposes Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions

For more information including our policy and submission procedure pleasecontact the Repository Team at usirsalfordacuk

1

CREEPING CONDITIONALITY IN THE UK FROM WELFARE RIGHTS

TO CONDITIONAL ENTITLEMENTS1

Abstract

A widely recognised central tenet of New Labourrsquos lsquoThird Wayrsquo is no rights without

responsibilities The extent to which this idea underpins the British governmentrsquos

approach to welfare reform has been extensively commented upon Initially the

article places the UK reforms in the context of wider theoretical debates about welfare

reform in Western states It then highlights the ways in which a principle of

conditionality is being practically applied in a wide range of sectors in the UK

including social security housing education and health The details and impact of

recent relevant legislation and initiatives are discussed It is argued that as policies

based on conditional entitlement become central to the ongoing process of welfare

reform the very idea of lsquowelfare rightsrsquo is systematically undermined

Key Words Rights Responsibilities Conditionality Welfare Reform

1 The author would like to thank Malcolm Harrison Kirk Mann Simon Prideaux the journal editors

and two anonymous referees for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript

2

Introduction

According to Giddens (1998) the prime motto of Third Way politics is no ldquorights

without responsibilitiesrdquo (65) Indeed the extent to which this principle underpins the

British Governmentrsquos general approach to welfare reform has been extensively

commented upon (Deacon 2002a Dwyer 2002 2000 1998 Prideaux 2001 Etzioni

2000 Lister 1998 Powell 1999)2

Following this introduction part one of the paper

places the recent UK welfare reforms which have a lsquoprinciple of conditionalityrsquo at

their core within a discussion of the wider emergence of lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo social

policies in many Western welfare states Part two then highlights the ways in which

conditionality is being practically applied in an increasingly wide range of UK

welfare policy areas namely social security housing education and health Details

of recent relevant legislation and initiatives in these sectors are discussed Part three

moves on to explore some of the effects of this approach for welfare provision It is

argued that as policies based on conditional entitlement become central to New

Labourrsquos vision the very idea of lsquowelfare rightsrsquo is systematically undermined The

implications of this approach in terms of New Labourrsquos welfare project and more

generally citizensrsquo social rights are noted in the conclusion

2 A discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of New Labourrsquos approach to welfare reform lies

beyond the remit of this paper Interested readers should refer to Deacon (2002a) Dwyer (2000)

Heron and Dwyer (1999) Driver and Martell (1998) Levitas (1998)

3

Echoing the earlier work of R Kent Weaver (1986) Pierson argues that ldquothe

contemporary politics of the welfare state is the politics of blame avoidancerdquo (1996

179) Third Way welfare reforms that stress reduced access to public welfare

provision a strong link between rights and responsibilities and an increasingly moral

agenda meet the requirements of cost containing governments rather than the needs of

citizens The welfare rights of those deemed lsquoirresponsiblersquo because they cannot or

will not meet certain state endorsed standards or regulations may be withdrawn or

reduced This enables politicians to place the blame for the predicament of those

whose right to publicly funded welfare is reduced or removed firmly at the door of the

individuals concerned Their exclusion from public welfare arrangements thus

becomes less problematic for the government (Dwyer 2000 1998) Inactive welfare

recipients thus become expedient lsquoscapegoatsrsquo (see Weaver 1986 387) for

administrations looking to avoid the blame for any negative outcomes that may ensue

for those citizens whose access to collective social welfare provision is diminished as

a consequence of the introduction of activeThird Way welfare policies

A shift from lsquowelfare societyrsquo to lsquoactive societyrsquo

Built around three rights elements (ie civil political and social) Marshallrsquos theory

(19501992) of citizenship implied an equality of status universally enjoyed by all

deemed to be citizens It was the addition of a third social rights element which

promised

the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security

to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live civilised life

according to the standards prevailing in societyrdquo (Marshall 1992 8)

4

that made the citizenship status of the social democratic post war welfare settlement

(PWWS) both distinctive and substantive when compared to that which had gone

before Although Marshall saw citizenship as a status that entailed both rights and

duties it is clear that a general concern with social rights rather than responsibilities

characterised his approach Many (eg Etzioni 2000 1997 Mead 1997 Giddens

1994) have subsequently criticised his account for placing the idea of unconditional

entitlement to welfare at the centre of his account Marshallrsquos view that rights to

welfare should be both universal and unconditional was shared by Titmuss Tawney

and others who were also concerned to ensure that public welfare would lessen

inequalities and foster a sense of social solidarity between citizens (Deacon 2002a

Cox 1998)

Fifty years on the ideas that were central to these ldquoconceptual architects of the welfare

staterdquo (Cox 1998 3) are viewed by many to be both outdated and likely to exacerbate

passive welfare dependency In recent years a number of profound economic political

and social changes in Western societies (rf Williams 1999 Cox 1998 Walters

1997) have resulted in significant changes in the organisation of contemporary

welfare states (Taylor-Gooby 2002) Much talk of a new lsquoThird Wayrsquo politics has

emerged most notably but not exclusively in the UK and USA According to a chief

exponent (Giddens 1998 1994) the correct role for governments to assume in relation

to welfare is to encourage an lsquoentrepreneurial culturersquo that rewards lsquoresponsible risk

takersrsquo This new lsquosocial investment statersquo meets its commitments to social justice

and equality via the redistribution of lsquopossibilitiesrsquo (primarily the opportunity to work

and the right to education) rather than wealth Giddens is also unequivocal in making

a reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities central to his approach

5

Embraced with some enthusiasm by New Labour in Britain (Blair 1998) this lsquonewrsquo

politics can be seen as a fundamental challenge to the ldquopost war idea of the welfare

state based on the principle of universal entitlement derived from citizenshiprdquo (Cox

1998 3)

Whilst many governments optimistically endorse welfare which prioritises

responsible individual agency as a panacea for dependency others are more sceptical

about the current direction of welfare reform Walters (1997) argues that the lsquowelfare

societyrsquo of the past that promised theoretically at least a common citizenship status

which guaranteed a universal minimum of welfare rights has today been superseded

by the lsquoactive societyrsquo in which increasingly individuals can only access social rights

if they are willing to become workers in the paid labour market (PLM) Walters is

aware of the false universalism of the PWWS and the fact that that a personrsquos

participation and position in the highly stratified PLM has long been of central

importance in defining the quality and extent of an their access to public provision

His key point is that a fundamental shift has occurred Although imperfect in the

lsquowelfare societyrsquo of the past the state exempted certain lsquoinactiversquo groups from PLM

participation This was because either they were recognised as making socially valid

contributions elsewhere (eg women engaged in informalfamilial care work) or

because they had previously contributed (eg retired senior citizens) Today ldquomany of

these assumptions about the specifically social obligations and consequent rights of

the citizen no longer applyhellipThe active society makes us all workersrdquo (Walters 1997

223-4) Policies that seek to promote unconditional entitlement to public welfare

benefits are seen as entrenching welfare dependency If necessary reluctant

individuals should be forced into activity by the application of benefit sanctions Only

6

those who lsquotake chargersquo of their own lives are deemed to be responsible lsquoactiversquo

citizens (Wetherly 2001) This is certainly an agenda that New Labour have been

keen to endorse and such ideas enjoy more extensive support Increasingly they

inform policy across Europe (Lǿdemel and Trickey 2000 Van Oorschot 2000) in

the USA (Deacon 2002a Prideaux 2001 OrsquoConnor 1998) Australia and elsewhere

(Goodin 2002)

In the USA influential thinkers like Lawrence Mead (1997 1986) have long argued

that the existence of unconditional social benefits has helped to create a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo The welfare state of the past offered support but expected

little in return Mead (1997) argues that not only is conditionality both generally

popular and functional but also that the imposition of compulsory work conditions for

the recipients of state benefit effectively re-establishes their right to be regarded as

citizens He believes that previously permissive welfare regimes and the unconditional

nature of their benefits marked out the poor as recipients of state charity rather than as

citizens entitled to state support in return for their acceptance of specified

responsibilities Conditionality thus restores their right to equal citizenship status

because as Mead has stated ldquoonly those who bear obligations can truly appropriate

their rightsrdquo (1986 257) A case for recipients of social welfare to voluntarily accept

their obligations could of course be made but Mead has rejected this as unlikely to

succeed He holds that it is right and proper for the state to use paternalistic authority

to compel individuals to return to the labour market

These type of ideas have found practical expression in the reform of the US welfare

system in the past decade lsquoWorkfarersquo schemes in which state welfare benefits are

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

2

Introduction

According to Giddens (1998) the prime motto of Third Way politics is no ldquorights

without responsibilitiesrdquo (65) Indeed the extent to which this principle underpins the

British Governmentrsquos general approach to welfare reform has been extensively

commented upon (Deacon 2002a Dwyer 2002 2000 1998 Prideaux 2001 Etzioni

2000 Lister 1998 Powell 1999)2

Following this introduction part one of the paper

places the recent UK welfare reforms which have a lsquoprinciple of conditionalityrsquo at

their core within a discussion of the wider emergence of lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo social

policies in many Western welfare states Part two then highlights the ways in which

conditionality is being practically applied in an increasingly wide range of UK

welfare policy areas namely social security housing education and health Details

of recent relevant legislation and initiatives in these sectors are discussed Part three

moves on to explore some of the effects of this approach for welfare provision It is

argued that as policies based on conditional entitlement become central to New

Labourrsquos vision the very idea of lsquowelfare rightsrsquo is systematically undermined The

implications of this approach in terms of New Labourrsquos welfare project and more

generally citizensrsquo social rights are noted in the conclusion

2 A discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of New Labourrsquos approach to welfare reform lies

beyond the remit of this paper Interested readers should refer to Deacon (2002a) Dwyer (2000)

Heron and Dwyer (1999) Driver and Martell (1998) Levitas (1998)

3

Echoing the earlier work of R Kent Weaver (1986) Pierson argues that ldquothe

contemporary politics of the welfare state is the politics of blame avoidancerdquo (1996

179) Third Way welfare reforms that stress reduced access to public welfare

provision a strong link between rights and responsibilities and an increasingly moral

agenda meet the requirements of cost containing governments rather than the needs of

citizens The welfare rights of those deemed lsquoirresponsiblersquo because they cannot or

will not meet certain state endorsed standards or regulations may be withdrawn or

reduced This enables politicians to place the blame for the predicament of those

whose right to publicly funded welfare is reduced or removed firmly at the door of the

individuals concerned Their exclusion from public welfare arrangements thus

becomes less problematic for the government (Dwyer 2000 1998) Inactive welfare

recipients thus become expedient lsquoscapegoatsrsquo (see Weaver 1986 387) for

administrations looking to avoid the blame for any negative outcomes that may ensue

for those citizens whose access to collective social welfare provision is diminished as

a consequence of the introduction of activeThird Way welfare policies

A shift from lsquowelfare societyrsquo to lsquoactive societyrsquo

Built around three rights elements (ie civil political and social) Marshallrsquos theory

(19501992) of citizenship implied an equality of status universally enjoyed by all

deemed to be citizens It was the addition of a third social rights element which

promised

the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security

to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live civilised life

according to the standards prevailing in societyrdquo (Marshall 1992 8)

4

that made the citizenship status of the social democratic post war welfare settlement

(PWWS) both distinctive and substantive when compared to that which had gone

before Although Marshall saw citizenship as a status that entailed both rights and

duties it is clear that a general concern with social rights rather than responsibilities

characterised his approach Many (eg Etzioni 2000 1997 Mead 1997 Giddens

1994) have subsequently criticised his account for placing the idea of unconditional

entitlement to welfare at the centre of his account Marshallrsquos view that rights to

welfare should be both universal and unconditional was shared by Titmuss Tawney

and others who were also concerned to ensure that public welfare would lessen

inequalities and foster a sense of social solidarity between citizens (Deacon 2002a

Cox 1998)

Fifty years on the ideas that were central to these ldquoconceptual architects of the welfare

staterdquo (Cox 1998 3) are viewed by many to be both outdated and likely to exacerbate

passive welfare dependency In recent years a number of profound economic political

and social changes in Western societies (rf Williams 1999 Cox 1998 Walters

1997) have resulted in significant changes in the organisation of contemporary

welfare states (Taylor-Gooby 2002) Much talk of a new lsquoThird Wayrsquo politics has

emerged most notably but not exclusively in the UK and USA According to a chief

exponent (Giddens 1998 1994) the correct role for governments to assume in relation

to welfare is to encourage an lsquoentrepreneurial culturersquo that rewards lsquoresponsible risk

takersrsquo This new lsquosocial investment statersquo meets its commitments to social justice

and equality via the redistribution of lsquopossibilitiesrsquo (primarily the opportunity to work

and the right to education) rather than wealth Giddens is also unequivocal in making

a reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities central to his approach

5

Embraced with some enthusiasm by New Labour in Britain (Blair 1998) this lsquonewrsquo

politics can be seen as a fundamental challenge to the ldquopost war idea of the welfare

state based on the principle of universal entitlement derived from citizenshiprdquo (Cox

1998 3)

Whilst many governments optimistically endorse welfare which prioritises

responsible individual agency as a panacea for dependency others are more sceptical

about the current direction of welfare reform Walters (1997) argues that the lsquowelfare

societyrsquo of the past that promised theoretically at least a common citizenship status

which guaranteed a universal minimum of welfare rights has today been superseded

by the lsquoactive societyrsquo in which increasingly individuals can only access social rights

if they are willing to become workers in the paid labour market (PLM) Walters is

aware of the false universalism of the PWWS and the fact that that a personrsquos

participation and position in the highly stratified PLM has long been of central

importance in defining the quality and extent of an their access to public provision

His key point is that a fundamental shift has occurred Although imperfect in the

lsquowelfare societyrsquo of the past the state exempted certain lsquoinactiversquo groups from PLM

participation This was because either they were recognised as making socially valid

contributions elsewhere (eg women engaged in informalfamilial care work) or

because they had previously contributed (eg retired senior citizens) Today ldquomany of

these assumptions about the specifically social obligations and consequent rights of

the citizen no longer applyhellipThe active society makes us all workersrdquo (Walters 1997

223-4) Policies that seek to promote unconditional entitlement to public welfare

benefits are seen as entrenching welfare dependency If necessary reluctant

individuals should be forced into activity by the application of benefit sanctions Only

6

those who lsquotake chargersquo of their own lives are deemed to be responsible lsquoactiversquo

citizens (Wetherly 2001) This is certainly an agenda that New Labour have been

keen to endorse and such ideas enjoy more extensive support Increasingly they

inform policy across Europe (Lǿdemel and Trickey 2000 Van Oorschot 2000) in

the USA (Deacon 2002a Prideaux 2001 OrsquoConnor 1998) Australia and elsewhere

(Goodin 2002)

In the USA influential thinkers like Lawrence Mead (1997 1986) have long argued

that the existence of unconditional social benefits has helped to create a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo The welfare state of the past offered support but expected

little in return Mead (1997) argues that not only is conditionality both generally

popular and functional but also that the imposition of compulsory work conditions for

the recipients of state benefit effectively re-establishes their right to be regarded as

citizens He believes that previously permissive welfare regimes and the unconditional

nature of their benefits marked out the poor as recipients of state charity rather than as

citizens entitled to state support in return for their acceptance of specified

responsibilities Conditionality thus restores their right to equal citizenship status

because as Mead has stated ldquoonly those who bear obligations can truly appropriate

their rightsrdquo (1986 257) A case for recipients of social welfare to voluntarily accept

their obligations could of course be made but Mead has rejected this as unlikely to

succeed He holds that it is right and proper for the state to use paternalistic authority

to compel individuals to return to the labour market

These type of ideas have found practical expression in the reform of the US welfare

system in the past decade lsquoWorkfarersquo schemes in which state welfare benefits are

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

3

Echoing the earlier work of R Kent Weaver (1986) Pierson argues that ldquothe

contemporary politics of the welfare state is the politics of blame avoidancerdquo (1996

179) Third Way welfare reforms that stress reduced access to public welfare

provision a strong link between rights and responsibilities and an increasingly moral

agenda meet the requirements of cost containing governments rather than the needs of

citizens The welfare rights of those deemed lsquoirresponsiblersquo because they cannot or

will not meet certain state endorsed standards or regulations may be withdrawn or

reduced This enables politicians to place the blame for the predicament of those

whose right to publicly funded welfare is reduced or removed firmly at the door of the

individuals concerned Their exclusion from public welfare arrangements thus

becomes less problematic for the government (Dwyer 2000 1998) Inactive welfare

recipients thus become expedient lsquoscapegoatsrsquo (see Weaver 1986 387) for

administrations looking to avoid the blame for any negative outcomes that may ensue

for those citizens whose access to collective social welfare provision is diminished as

a consequence of the introduction of activeThird Way welfare policies

A shift from lsquowelfare societyrsquo to lsquoactive societyrsquo

Built around three rights elements (ie civil political and social) Marshallrsquos theory

(19501992) of citizenship implied an equality of status universally enjoyed by all

deemed to be citizens It was the addition of a third social rights element which

promised

the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare and security

to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live civilised life

according to the standards prevailing in societyrdquo (Marshall 1992 8)

4

that made the citizenship status of the social democratic post war welfare settlement

(PWWS) both distinctive and substantive when compared to that which had gone

before Although Marshall saw citizenship as a status that entailed both rights and

duties it is clear that a general concern with social rights rather than responsibilities

characterised his approach Many (eg Etzioni 2000 1997 Mead 1997 Giddens

1994) have subsequently criticised his account for placing the idea of unconditional

entitlement to welfare at the centre of his account Marshallrsquos view that rights to

welfare should be both universal and unconditional was shared by Titmuss Tawney

and others who were also concerned to ensure that public welfare would lessen

inequalities and foster a sense of social solidarity between citizens (Deacon 2002a

Cox 1998)

Fifty years on the ideas that were central to these ldquoconceptual architects of the welfare

staterdquo (Cox 1998 3) are viewed by many to be both outdated and likely to exacerbate

passive welfare dependency In recent years a number of profound economic political

and social changes in Western societies (rf Williams 1999 Cox 1998 Walters

1997) have resulted in significant changes in the organisation of contemporary

welfare states (Taylor-Gooby 2002) Much talk of a new lsquoThird Wayrsquo politics has

emerged most notably but not exclusively in the UK and USA According to a chief

exponent (Giddens 1998 1994) the correct role for governments to assume in relation

to welfare is to encourage an lsquoentrepreneurial culturersquo that rewards lsquoresponsible risk

takersrsquo This new lsquosocial investment statersquo meets its commitments to social justice

and equality via the redistribution of lsquopossibilitiesrsquo (primarily the opportunity to work

and the right to education) rather than wealth Giddens is also unequivocal in making

a reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities central to his approach

5

Embraced with some enthusiasm by New Labour in Britain (Blair 1998) this lsquonewrsquo

politics can be seen as a fundamental challenge to the ldquopost war idea of the welfare

state based on the principle of universal entitlement derived from citizenshiprdquo (Cox

1998 3)

Whilst many governments optimistically endorse welfare which prioritises

responsible individual agency as a panacea for dependency others are more sceptical

about the current direction of welfare reform Walters (1997) argues that the lsquowelfare

societyrsquo of the past that promised theoretically at least a common citizenship status

which guaranteed a universal minimum of welfare rights has today been superseded

by the lsquoactive societyrsquo in which increasingly individuals can only access social rights

if they are willing to become workers in the paid labour market (PLM) Walters is

aware of the false universalism of the PWWS and the fact that that a personrsquos

participation and position in the highly stratified PLM has long been of central

importance in defining the quality and extent of an their access to public provision

His key point is that a fundamental shift has occurred Although imperfect in the

lsquowelfare societyrsquo of the past the state exempted certain lsquoinactiversquo groups from PLM

participation This was because either they were recognised as making socially valid

contributions elsewhere (eg women engaged in informalfamilial care work) or

because they had previously contributed (eg retired senior citizens) Today ldquomany of

these assumptions about the specifically social obligations and consequent rights of

the citizen no longer applyhellipThe active society makes us all workersrdquo (Walters 1997

223-4) Policies that seek to promote unconditional entitlement to public welfare

benefits are seen as entrenching welfare dependency If necessary reluctant

individuals should be forced into activity by the application of benefit sanctions Only

6

those who lsquotake chargersquo of their own lives are deemed to be responsible lsquoactiversquo

citizens (Wetherly 2001) This is certainly an agenda that New Labour have been

keen to endorse and such ideas enjoy more extensive support Increasingly they

inform policy across Europe (Lǿdemel and Trickey 2000 Van Oorschot 2000) in

the USA (Deacon 2002a Prideaux 2001 OrsquoConnor 1998) Australia and elsewhere

(Goodin 2002)

In the USA influential thinkers like Lawrence Mead (1997 1986) have long argued

that the existence of unconditional social benefits has helped to create a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo The welfare state of the past offered support but expected

little in return Mead (1997) argues that not only is conditionality both generally

popular and functional but also that the imposition of compulsory work conditions for

the recipients of state benefit effectively re-establishes their right to be regarded as

citizens He believes that previously permissive welfare regimes and the unconditional

nature of their benefits marked out the poor as recipients of state charity rather than as

citizens entitled to state support in return for their acceptance of specified

responsibilities Conditionality thus restores their right to equal citizenship status

because as Mead has stated ldquoonly those who bear obligations can truly appropriate

their rightsrdquo (1986 257) A case for recipients of social welfare to voluntarily accept

their obligations could of course be made but Mead has rejected this as unlikely to

succeed He holds that it is right and proper for the state to use paternalistic authority

to compel individuals to return to the labour market

These type of ideas have found practical expression in the reform of the US welfare

system in the past decade lsquoWorkfarersquo schemes in which state welfare benefits are

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

4

that made the citizenship status of the social democratic post war welfare settlement

(PWWS) both distinctive and substantive when compared to that which had gone

before Although Marshall saw citizenship as a status that entailed both rights and

duties it is clear that a general concern with social rights rather than responsibilities

characterised his approach Many (eg Etzioni 2000 1997 Mead 1997 Giddens

1994) have subsequently criticised his account for placing the idea of unconditional

entitlement to welfare at the centre of his account Marshallrsquos view that rights to

welfare should be both universal and unconditional was shared by Titmuss Tawney

and others who were also concerned to ensure that public welfare would lessen

inequalities and foster a sense of social solidarity between citizens (Deacon 2002a

Cox 1998)

Fifty years on the ideas that were central to these ldquoconceptual architects of the welfare

staterdquo (Cox 1998 3) are viewed by many to be both outdated and likely to exacerbate

passive welfare dependency In recent years a number of profound economic political

and social changes in Western societies (rf Williams 1999 Cox 1998 Walters

1997) have resulted in significant changes in the organisation of contemporary

welfare states (Taylor-Gooby 2002) Much talk of a new lsquoThird Wayrsquo politics has

emerged most notably but not exclusively in the UK and USA According to a chief

exponent (Giddens 1998 1994) the correct role for governments to assume in relation

to welfare is to encourage an lsquoentrepreneurial culturersquo that rewards lsquoresponsible risk

takersrsquo This new lsquosocial investment statersquo meets its commitments to social justice

and equality via the redistribution of lsquopossibilitiesrsquo (primarily the opportunity to work

and the right to education) rather than wealth Giddens is also unequivocal in making

a reciprocal relationship between rights and responsibilities central to his approach

5

Embraced with some enthusiasm by New Labour in Britain (Blair 1998) this lsquonewrsquo

politics can be seen as a fundamental challenge to the ldquopost war idea of the welfare

state based on the principle of universal entitlement derived from citizenshiprdquo (Cox

1998 3)

Whilst many governments optimistically endorse welfare which prioritises

responsible individual agency as a panacea for dependency others are more sceptical

about the current direction of welfare reform Walters (1997) argues that the lsquowelfare

societyrsquo of the past that promised theoretically at least a common citizenship status

which guaranteed a universal minimum of welfare rights has today been superseded

by the lsquoactive societyrsquo in which increasingly individuals can only access social rights

if they are willing to become workers in the paid labour market (PLM) Walters is

aware of the false universalism of the PWWS and the fact that that a personrsquos

participation and position in the highly stratified PLM has long been of central

importance in defining the quality and extent of an their access to public provision

His key point is that a fundamental shift has occurred Although imperfect in the

lsquowelfare societyrsquo of the past the state exempted certain lsquoinactiversquo groups from PLM

participation This was because either they were recognised as making socially valid

contributions elsewhere (eg women engaged in informalfamilial care work) or

because they had previously contributed (eg retired senior citizens) Today ldquomany of

these assumptions about the specifically social obligations and consequent rights of

the citizen no longer applyhellipThe active society makes us all workersrdquo (Walters 1997

223-4) Policies that seek to promote unconditional entitlement to public welfare

benefits are seen as entrenching welfare dependency If necessary reluctant

individuals should be forced into activity by the application of benefit sanctions Only

6

those who lsquotake chargersquo of their own lives are deemed to be responsible lsquoactiversquo

citizens (Wetherly 2001) This is certainly an agenda that New Labour have been

keen to endorse and such ideas enjoy more extensive support Increasingly they

inform policy across Europe (Lǿdemel and Trickey 2000 Van Oorschot 2000) in

the USA (Deacon 2002a Prideaux 2001 OrsquoConnor 1998) Australia and elsewhere

(Goodin 2002)

In the USA influential thinkers like Lawrence Mead (1997 1986) have long argued

that the existence of unconditional social benefits has helped to create a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo The welfare state of the past offered support but expected

little in return Mead (1997) argues that not only is conditionality both generally

popular and functional but also that the imposition of compulsory work conditions for

the recipients of state benefit effectively re-establishes their right to be regarded as

citizens He believes that previously permissive welfare regimes and the unconditional

nature of their benefits marked out the poor as recipients of state charity rather than as

citizens entitled to state support in return for their acceptance of specified

responsibilities Conditionality thus restores their right to equal citizenship status

because as Mead has stated ldquoonly those who bear obligations can truly appropriate

their rightsrdquo (1986 257) A case for recipients of social welfare to voluntarily accept

their obligations could of course be made but Mead has rejected this as unlikely to

succeed He holds that it is right and proper for the state to use paternalistic authority

to compel individuals to return to the labour market

These type of ideas have found practical expression in the reform of the US welfare

system in the past decade lsquoWorkfarersquo schemes in which state welfare benefits are

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

5

Embraced with some enthusiasm by New Labour in Britain (Blair 1998) this lsquonewrsquo

politics can be seen as a fundamental challenge to the ldquopost war idea of the welfare

state based on the principle of universal entitlement derived from citizenshiprdquo (Cox

1998 3)

Whilst many governments optimistically endorse welfare which prioritises

responsible individual agency as a panacea for dependency others are more sceptical

about the current direction of welfare reform Walters (1997) argues that the lsquowelfare

societyrsquo of the past that promised theoretically at least a common citizenship status

which guaranteed a universal minimum of welfare rights has today been superseded

by the lsquoactive societyrsquo in which increasingly individuals can only access social rights

if they are willing to become workers in the paid labour market (PLM) Walters is

aware of the false universalism of the PWWS and the fact that that a personrsquos

participation and position in the highly stratified PLM has long been of central

importance in defining the quality and extent of an their access to public provision

His key point is that a fundamental shift has occurred Although imperfect in the

lsquowelfare societyrsquo of the past the state exempted certain lsquoinactiversquo groups from PLM

participation This was because either they were recognised as making socially valid

contributions elsewhere (eg women engaged in informalfamilial care work) or

because they had previously contributed (eg retired senior citizens) Today ldquomany of

these assumptions about the specifically social obligations and consequent rights of

the citizen no longer applyhellipThe active society makes us all workersrdquo (Walters 1997

223-4) Policies that seek to promote unconditional entitlement to public welfare

benefits are seen as entrenching welfare dependency If necessary reluctant

individuals should be forced into activity by the application of benefit sanctions Only

6

those who lsquotake chargersquo of their own lives are deemed to be responsible lsquoactiversquo

citizens (Wetherly 2001) This is certainly an agenda that New Labour have been

keen to endorse and such ideas enjoy more extensive support Increasingly they

inform policy across Europe (Lǿdemel and Trickey 2000 Van Oorschot 2000) in

the USA (Deacon 2002a Prideaux 2001 OrsquoConnor 1998) Australia and elsewhere

(Goodin 2002)

In the USA influential thinkers like Lawrence Mead (1997 1986) have long argued

that the existence of unconditional social benefits has helped to create a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo The welfare state of the past offered support but expected

little in return Mead (1997) argues that not only is conditionality both generally

popular and functional but also that the imposition of compulsory work conditions for

the recipients of state benefit effectively re-establishes their right to be regarded as

citizens He believes that previously permissive welfare regimes and the unconditional

nature of their benefits marked out the poor as recipients of state charity rather than as

citizens entitled to state support in return for their acceptance of specified

responsibilities Conditionality thus restores their right to equal citizenship status

because as Mead has stated ldquoonly those who bear obligations can truly appropriate

their rightsrdquo (1986 257) A case for recipients of social welfare to voluntarily accept

their obligations could of course be made but Mead has rejected this as unlikely to

succeed He holds that it is right and proper for the state to use paternalistic authority

to compel individuals to return to the labour market

These type of ideas have found practical expression in the reform of the US welfare

system in the past decade lsquoWorkfarersquo schemes in which state welfare benefits are

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

6

those who lsquotake chargersquo of their own lives are deemed to be responsible lsquoactiversquo

citizens (Wetherly 2001) This is certainly an agenda that New Labour have been

keen to endorse and such ideas enjoy more extensive support Increasingly they

inform policy across Europe (Lǿdemel and Trickey 2000 Van Oorschot 2000) in

the USA (Deacon 2002a Prideaux 2001 OrsquoConnor 1998) Australia and elsewhere

(Goodin 2002)

In the USA influential thinkers like Lawrence Mead (1997 1986) have long argued

that the existence of unconditional social benefits has helped to create a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo The welfare state of the past offered support but expected

little in return Mead (1997) argues that not only is conditionality both generally

popular and functional but also that the imposition of compulsory work conditions for

the recipients of state benefit effectively re-establishes their right to be regarded as

citizens He believes that previously permissive welfare regimes and the unconditional

nature of their benefits marked out the poor as recipients of state charity rather than as

citizens entitled to state support in return for their acceptance of specified

responsibilities Conditionality thus restores their right to equal citizenship status

because as Mead has stated ldquoonly those who bear obligations can truly appropriate

their rightsrdquo (1986 257) A case for recipients of social welfare to voluntarily accept

their obligations could of course be made but Mead has rejected this as unlikely to

succeed He holds that it is right and proper for the state to use paternalistic authority

to compel individuals to return to the labour market

These type of ideas have found practical expression in the reform of the US welfare

system in the past decade lsquoWorkfarersquo schemes in which state welfare benefits are

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

7

dependant on recipients accepting attendant state-defined work are now a central

feature of social policy in the USA (King 1999) The Personal Responsibility and

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) which sets a five year lifetime limit for

the receipt of benefits and enforces more stringent work requirements on lone mothers

illustrates the extent to which limited and conditional welfare benefits have become

the accepted norm in the USA (rf Deacon 2002a Beacuteland et al 2001 for details) This

shift towards social policies that combine coercive paternalism and conditional

entitlement to effectively reduce the rights of vulnerable citizens is not without its

opponents (see King 1999) In the context of this paper however it is important to

note that American ideas and experiences have influenced UK reform process and

New Labour appears to be unwilling to listen to such critics

The consequences of such reforms should not be dismissed lightly Pierson (2001

1996) has argued that mature welfare states are resilient institutions which are often

resistant to retrenchment The new politics of welfare is different from the earlier

politics of expansion Retrenchment is generally unpopular and politicians who

attempt to cut back public welfare are in the business of blame avoidance rather than

credit claiming They also often face entrenched opposition from voters and interest

groups Pierson states that measuring retrenchment is a difficult task One significant

indicator of a structural shift in welfare states are ldquodramatic changes in benefit and

eligibility rules that signal a qualitative reform of a particular programrdquo (1996 157)

The welfare reform policies outlined below illustrate that such a qualitative shift is

ongoing within the UK welfare state The idea of welfare rights is being superseded

by one of conditional entitlement The change is not limited to Britain As Deacon

(2002a) notes ending the right to welfare was central to US welfare reform in the

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

8

1990s It is possible to dismiss the UK reforms and policy changes in the outlined

below as minor and of little long-term consequence but as Cox notes such lsquotinkeringrsquo

often has far reaching consequences

Though tinkering is often viewed as a substitute for real reform it can lead to

important change especially when its cumulative impact is taken into

consideration Years of austerity measures numerous small manipulations in

programme eligibility decentralisation of administrative responsibility a shift

from passive to active unemployment measures all of these are important

changes (1998 2)

Creeping conditionality in the UK

A principle of conditionality holds that eligibility to certain basic publicly provided

welfare entitlements should be dependent on an individual first agreeing to meet

particular compulsory duties or patterns of behaviour (Deacon 1994) This section

aims to map the extent to which this principle now informs welfare policy in the UK

Very few if any welfare rights are totally unconditional In many ways a significant

number of social rights are and always have been to some extent conditional

Principles of (contingent) universality contribution and social assistance have long

been a feature of most European welfare states It has also recently been argued that

conditionality features throughout the history of British welfare (Powell 2002) The

vital point to note here however is the extent to which a principle of conditionality

has become central to the organisation of contemporary public welfare in the UK As

Deacon (2002a) notes the whole hearted endorsement of this approach by a British

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

9

Labour government would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago but it is now

fundamental to their vision of a 21st century welfare state

Social Security

A principle of conditionality is at the core of New Labourrsquos welfare to work agenda

In April 2002 when launching the national Job Centre Plus initiative the Prime

Minister restated the major themes central to his governmentrsquos welfare reforms

Emphasising an enabling welfare state he stressed three elements in the governmentrsquos

strategy for reducing dependency on social welfare benefits

The first is Job Centre Plus the second to extend the concept of the New Deals

and rights and responsibilities beyond the unemployed to the sick and disabled

(sic) The third part is new opportunities for skilled jobs ( Blair 2002 6)

Job Centre Plus retains many of the central components of the lsquoOnersquo initiative that it

replaced Anyone claiming working age benefits must agree to take part in a work

focused interview with an assigned adviser as a condition of benefit eligibility The

list of benefits that this measure covers is extensive and includes jobseekerrsquos

allowance income support incapacity benefit maternity allowance bereavement

benefits industrial injuries disablement benefit care allowance and the social fund

(Treolar 2001)

Within the existing lsquoNew Dealsrsquo for the young and long-term unemployed the link

between rights and responsibilities has been clearly defined since 1997 Failure to take

up one of the four worktraining options offered results in punitive benefit sanctions

Claimants can lose some or all of their benefit for a period of between 2 and 26 weeks

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

10

depending on circumstances (DWP 2002a) Detailed data on the numbers effected by

cuts and suspensions in various benefits are hard to attain but in the quarter yearly

periods between OctoberDecember 1998 and JulySeptember 2000 the numbers of

young people sanctioned varied between a low 2695 and a high of 5157 (Bivand

2001) Government figures relating to JSA show some 21000 claimants as subject to

sanctions in May 2002 (DWP 2002a)

Various similar although perhaps less severe approaches for lone parents and

disabled people are clearly part of the immediate future Entitlement conditions for

both groups are becoming more restrictive From April 2001 work focused interviews

became compulsory for most lone parents claiming income support with children aged

13 years plus3

Since April 2003 all lone parents claiming income support have been

required to attend Coupled to this benefit entitlement for many lone parents is

conditional on a woman naming a childrsquos absent father under rules introduced under

the Child Support Act 1991

In relation to disabled people reforms introduced in the Welfare Reform and Pensions

Act (1999) - strengthening the link between work and entitlement to incapacity

benefit so that only those who have recently been in work and paid NI contributions

are eligible the application of the lsquoall work testrsquo (now called the capability

assessment) attendance at a work focused interview - can be seen as meeting the

requirements of a cost cutting government rather than meeting the needs of disabled

people who do not work The Prime Minister is keen to emphasise that the

3 In the period between 30th April 2001 and 29th March 2002 1531 lone parents were sanctioned for

failing to attend the compulsory interview without good cause (Hansard 2002)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

11

governmentrsquos social security strategy is focused on enabling (re)entry into the PLM

whilst simultaneously recognising the needs of those who are unable to work because

of personal impairments The stated aim of present policy is to return as many of the

27 million people currently in receipt of disability and incapacity benefits to the

workforce (Blair 2002)

The third element of the UK governmentrsquos strategy the creation of opportunities for

real skilled jobs establishes the limits of New Labourrsquos rather than claimants

responsibilities The idea behind the lsquoAmbitionsrsquo programmes announced as part of

Job Centre Plus is to enable people to get higher skilled better paid jobs and so tackle

a situation where people remain unemployed when certain employers canrsquot get skilled

staff (Blair 2002) Such job creation initiatives should be broadly welcomed but

allied to this as Treolar notes creeping conditionality is becoming an established part

of government benefit policy

For more and more claimants benefit entitlement is going to be dependent on

satisfying work related conditions Where that leaves the concept of a right to

benefit is a matter for speculation The impact on claimant attitude and

behaviour is yet to become fully apparent (2001 3)

Alongside the enforcement of work related conditions the linking of certain benefit

rights to behavioural conditions is also an increasing aspect of UK social policy

debates Following Frank Field (Minister for Welfare Reform 1997-1998) the

government strongly supported the proposals outlined in his Housing Benefit

(Withholding of Payment) Bill (2002) This proposes that the right to housing benefit

be withdrawn for a maximum of 12 months from individuals who (or whose

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

12

children) have been convicted twice within a three year period by the courts of anti-

social behaviour Field is explicit that his aim is to reform the behaviour of a small

minority of persistent offenders He believes that in extreme circumstances children

should be taken into care until their parents either agree to control them adequately or

start to behave in an appropriate manner themselves (Field 2002) Most recently

(January 2004) the Government has announced that it will no longer be supporting

the Bill however the relevant Minister noted ldquowe want to judge the effectiveness of

the range of existing measures before introducing a new one But we have not ruled

out other means in the future as we learn from experience and establish what worksrdquo

(Pond in DWP 2004)

The most controversial suggestions to emerge were those which proposed

withdrawing of Child Benefit from parents whose children persistently truant from

school andor engage in anti-social behaviour (Finch 2002) Following strong dissent

from both within and beyond the government the suggestions have since been

dropped The initial enthusiasm with which the Prime Minister and many of his inner

circle embraced this and the housing benefit proposals does however illustrate both

the ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time and

the extent to which a principle of conditionality now informs much social security

policy

Housing

Aside from the new developments in relation to Housing Benefit discussed above

conditionality is now a key feature of contemporary social housing policy in the UK

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

13

Arguably against a political backdrop which increasingly identifies certain social

housing tenants as part of an lsquounderclassrsquo a more punitive approach to the

management of social housing has emerged Linking housing rights to responsible

behaviour is not however straightforward Definitions of anti-social behaviour may

encompass a wide range of conduct from children playing where they annoy

neighbours to serious criminal activity racial harassment or violent attacks (Flint

2002 Card 2001 Hunter 2001)

The Housing Act (1996) delivered by the last Conservative administration bought

about significant changes that linked the right to reside in social housing to specific

behavioural responsibilities Probationary tenancy periods (PTPs) of twelve months

duration were introduced These render tenants who behave in an lsquoanti-socialrsquo manner

within the trial period liable to eviction and are local authorities can revoke the right

to a future secure tenancy It also became easier for social and private landlords to

evict existing tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour As Hunter argues

The approach of the 1996 Act can be said to be one which targets those living in

social housing reduces and limits the rights of such people and ultimately

takes away the one of their most basic rights the right to live in their home

(2001 228)

A range of instruments are now available to social landlords to manage tenants which

make the right to housing subject to conditionality They appear to be having a

practical effect By 1999 30 of local authorities (LAs) and 13 of registered social

landlords (RSLs) had introduced PTPs Half of these local authorities had evicted

tenants in a 12 month period with 19 of evictions based on nuisance (Nixon et al

1999 cited in Card 2001) Evidence also suggests that housing agencies are managing

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

14

anti-social behaviour by encouraging tenants to be responsible eg by introducing

Good Neighbour Charters in Glasgow4

) and by allowing representatives to sit on

letting committees to vet potential tenants (Flint 2002) The exclusion of nuisance

neighbours via the denial of a tenancy is now an established part of local policy

Figures from Smith et al (2001) note that ldquo477 [of LAs and RSLs surveyed]

excluded on the basis of ex-tenant behaviour and 40 for tenant behaviourrdquo (cited in

Card 2001 210) A consultation paper indicates that the government is in favour of

strengthening and expanding the powers of social landlords in order to lsquocrack downrsquo

on anti-social tenants (DTLR 2002)

New Labour have also introduced anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) in the Crime

and Disorder Act (1998) These civil court orders grant a LA or the police the power

to prohibit an individual from acting in a specified anti-social manner andor the

power to exclude an individual from their home or other specified locality It is

however a criminal offence (potentially punishable by imprisonment) to break the

conditions set out in an order In the period 1st April 1999 to 30th June 2003 1337

ASBOs were served (Home Office 2003a) ASBOs have been used successfully in

neighbourhood disputes and to tackle youth crime and are now beginning to be used

to remove people from a particular area in order to combat street crimes such as drug

dealing and prostitution The government is convinced of the value of ASBOs and is

committed to extending their scope and use in new legislation (Home Office 2003b)

In general the courts have been supportive of social landlords and LAs when they

have pursued the legal options open to them However as Hunter (2001) argues it is

4 Cf Dwyer (2000 1998) on Mutual Aid Clauses in Bradford

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

15

often those tenants most in need of support (ie those suffering from mental or

physical impairments people with alcoholdrug dependency problems previous

victims of physical or sexual abuse etc) who attract the majority of complaints from

neighbours Punitive legal measures that link housing rights to responsibilities look

set to remain a part of policy in the near future whether or not they tackle the

underlying causes of much anti-social behaviour remains highly debatable (Hunter

2001) Recent legislation enacted to deal with anti-social behaviour in social housing

and local communities is however a clear example of how welfare sanctions in this

case the removal of the right to a home are increasingly becoming part of a wider law

and order agenda

Adult Education

In December 2000 the Secretary of State for Education outlined the need for a lsquoradical

and imaginative strategyrsquo (Blunkett 2000) to tackle the problem of adult illiteracy in

the UK which he identified as a significant cause of social exclusion from the PLM

decent jobs and wider community networks In setting a target to reduce the number

of adults with very weak numeracyliteracy skills by frac34 million by 2004 Blunkett

announced a series of pilot projects across England to begin in March 2001 Again

conditionality is very much part of the UK governmentrsquos thinking

The nine localised schemes established as part of the lsquoSkills for Lifersquo strategy test the

effectiveness of a variety of lsquocarrot and stickrsquo approaches in persuading jobseekersrsquo

allowance (JSA) claimants to learn basic skills In Wearside appropriate individuals

are referred to a full-time basic education scheme given pound10 per week extra benefit

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

16

for attending and pound100 bonus for successful completion of the course In contrast

some claimants in north NottinghamshireLeeds are not so lucky Since 17901 the

right to JSA of these claimants (aged 25-49) is subject to removal if they refuse or

give up their allocated place on a basic educational skills programme Initially benefit

will be withheld for two weeks and this period will be doubled for a second lsquooffencersquo

(Treolar 2001) The government is still assessing the impacts of the scheme but it has

not ruled out the possibility of national roll out even though the Social Security

Advisory Committee has stated it is against sanctions in this area (SSAC 2002)

Healthcare

The direct imposition of a principle of conditionality within the public healthcare

system of the UK remains limited5

5 Rationing healthcare according to principles other than individual need which include the denial of

treatment because of an individualrsquos habits or behaviour (eg drinking smoking etc) has however

long been part of Nation Health Service practice in the UK For a consideration of such debates refer to

Dwyer (2000) Langan (1998)

A universal right to free healthcare continues to

be a core aspect of social citizenship However conditionality is beginning to appear

in policy Against the backdrop of a rising number of attacks on healthcare staff

(many involving patients under the influence of drink andor drugs) the government

has declared that it will support staff who (under the threat of immediate danger)

make on the spot decisions and refuse treatment for violent patients (DoH 2002a)

Furthermore borrowing from the range of powers previously discussed the Queens

Medical Centre in Nottingham has also used court injunctions and ASBOs to ban

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

17

three people from entering hospital grounds unless they are in need of lifesaving

treatment (Carvel 2001)

An element of conditionality has been built into the improved Sure Start Maternity

Grant (SSMG) (Deacon 2002b Dean 2002) This grant is available to new mothers

who are (or whose partners are) recipients of income support income based JSA

working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit It has been increased in

value from pound100 to pound500 in the past two years However payment of the grant is now

conditional on a parent producing a signed certificate stating that they have received

suitable advice about their new childrsquos care from an approved healthcare professional

(DoH 2000) This may well be an example of the least punitive type of conditionality

but those who do not have the relevant approval are not eligible for the grant

Statistics indicate that in the period 20012 8433 claims for SSMG were initially

refused because the required certification was not provided by the applicant (DWP

2002b)

Most recently plans to modernise the Welfare Food Scheme (which currently provides

milk tokens and vitamins to mothers babies and toddlers in 800000 plus low income

families) indicate that the government is considering a further extension of the

conditional approach that it introduced for the SSMG Under the new proposals milk

tokens will be replaced by vouchers that can be exchanged for a more extensive range

of healthy foods (eg fruit) In order to be eligible to receive the vouchers however

mothers will have to register with certain healthcare professionals on three specified

occasions before and after the birth of a child (CPAG 2002 DoH 2002b)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

18

Discussions in this section of the paper illustrate that conditionality is becoming an

established and important element of social policy within the UK The question

remains however as to why New Labour has been able to pursue its approach to

welfare reform without encountering sustained opposition The Governmentrsquos

dominance in the House of Commons has been one obvious practical advantage New

Labourrsquos persistent and persuasive repetition of the Third Way mantra lsquono rights

without responsibilitiesrsquo and its general acceptance by all mainstream political parties

in the UK has probably been of more significance however in establishing a new

consensus around social citizenship Those citizens who refuse to accept New

Labourrsquos highly conditional approach to social welfare are widely regarded as

violating the central principle at the heart of the new welfare contract between citizen

and state ie ldquothat rights offered go with responsibilities owedrdquo (Labour Party 1997

1) Once this norm is broken it then becomes a relatively simple matter for the

government to highlight a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the errant

citizen as the root cause of an individualrsquos lack of welfare rights In doing so New

Labour is using Weaverrsquos (1986) terminology able to lsquopass the buckrsquo (ie deflect the

blame back for loss of social right back to the individual in question) whilst

simultaneously avoiding any blame in denying some UK citizens access to public

welfare

From welfare rights to conditional entitlements

Having outlined the details of specific legislation and initiatives in the UK it is now

important to discuss the wider implications that such changes may have for

contemporary notions of citizenship Initially this task leads us towards more

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

19

philosophical debates concerned with our understanding of lsquorightsrsquo in general and

welfare rights in particular Allied questions of the relationship between rights and

responsibilities whether rights are by their very definition unconditional and where

this leaves the idea of socialwelfare rights also need to be considered Following a

brief outline of these deliberations this section of the paper moves on to examine

whether or not it is reasonable for governments (such as the New Labour

administration in the UK) to rewrite the welfare contract between the individual and

the state as part of the ongoing process of welfare reform This is facilitated by a

consideration of Whitersquos (2000) defence of lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo and Goodinrsquos

(2000) condemnation of such approaches

Citizenship and welfare the demise of social rights

Ever since Marshallrsquos 1949 lecture the social rights element of his theory has been the

subject of contentious debate A number of writers most notably but not exclusively

from the lsquolibertarianrsquo Right of the political spectrum (eg Nozick 1995 Freidman

1962 Hayek 1944) have effectively denied the validity of the social rights element

The standard distinction made in relation to the triumvirate of citizenship rights is

between lsquonegativersquo civil and political rights on the one hand and lsquopositiversquo social

rights on the other This differentiation mirrors two views about the proper role of the

state in relation to rights and the promotionprotection of agency among its citizenry

According to the negative view the statersquos duty is to promote civil and political rights

which ensure agency by protecting individuals from interference from others The

emphasis here is on is on autonomy and liberty Supporters of lsquopositiversquo social rights

on the other hand hold that in modern capitalist societies this approach is not enough

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

20

agency requires ldquosome minimum material provision ndash that is some sort of right to

welfarerdquo (Griffin 2000 29) A number of strong arguments can be mobilised to

mount a philosophical defence of the notion of welfare rights and also to undermine

the lsquonegativersquo position of the libertarian Right (see Griffin 2000 Sample 1998

Bauhn 1997) This distinction between positivenegative understandings of rights is

however of significance because it is often used in conjunction with another criticism

of welfare rights that has become increasingly influential in recent years namely that

the existence of an extensive set of social rights has led to the formation of a welfare

dependant lsquounderclassrsquo (see Mead 1986 1997 Murray 1984)

Selbourne (1994) for example concludes that a proliferation of lsquodutiless rightsrsquo has

led to a malaise that strikes at the heart of modern citizenship and threatens social

cohesion The way to halt this demise is to assert the primacy of a lsquoprinciple of dutyrsquo

over and above the idea of rights particularly in the social sphere Rights to public

welfare are seen here as lsquogenerally lesser order entitlementsrsquo to privileges and

benefits which do not possess nor should be afforded similar legal status to civil and

political rights Furthermore he holds that ldquonotions of egalitarian entitlement to such

lsquorightsrsquo which owe nothing to the individualrsquos desert or meritsrdquo (Selbourne 1994 60)

undermine the moral basis of the civic order For these reasons Selbourne argues that

publicly provided welfare benefits and services should not be viewed as part of the

package of rights that inform a universally held status of lsquocitizenrsquo but that they should

be seen as potential privileges that a society may bestow on dutiful members who

behave in an approved manner In short what are generally referred to as welfare

lsquorightsrsquo are nothing of the sort they are merely highly conditional entitlements

Aspects of this interpretation of welfare rights and the respective roles of governments

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

21

and individuals in meeting responsibilities inform New Labourrsquos thinking on welfare

reform In making the principle of conditionality central to its approach New Labour

is moving away from Marshallrsquos position and endorsing the development of a welfare

system in which rights to welfare are being superseded by lesser order conditional

entitlements to social provisions The extent to which this shift can be justified is

explored below

Rewriting the rules or disciplining poor people

A defence of the principle of conditionality can be found in the work of White (2000)

Access to welfare benefits is one side of the contract between the citizen and

community which has as its reverse side various responsibilities that the

individual citizen is obliged to meet as a condition of eligibility for welfare

benefits the state may legitimately enforce these responsibilities which

centrally include the responsibility to work (White 2000 507)

The implicit assumption of this stance is that access to public welfare services is

arranged around a system of conditional entitlements rather than welfare rights

Certain commentators argue that what White calls lsquowelfare contractualismrsquo violates

the lack of conditionality at the core of T H Marshallrsquos vision of citizenship White

refutes such arguments by stating that Marshallrsquos approach can be seen to be

consistent with an ldquounconditional right of reasonable access to a given resource rather

than the dominant interpretation of a right to be given the same resource

unconditionallyrdquo (2000 510) In addition he argues that Marshall himself and the

lsquoliberal socialist traditionrsquo from which he emerged would be comfortable with this

approach White also notes that Marshall did stress that responsibilities most

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

22

importantly the lsquoessential duty to workrsquo (Marshall 1992 46) were part and parcel of

citizenship and that they became more important in his later works (cf Powell 2002

Rees 1995)

Welfare contractualism is justified by White on grounds of a lsquoreciprocity principlersquo

linked to a wider understanding of distributive justice Arguing that people are

essentially lsquoHomo reciprocansrsquo (ie co-operative beings willing to accept that it is

legitimate that they be asked to make certain contributions provided others do

likewise) he also believes that welfare contractualism can be defended on the grounds

that it prevents freeloaders from exploiting fellow citizens Having made the case for

welfare contractualism he then goes on to state that it is only reasonable to enforce

such an approach if the society that implements it meets the following five conditions

First the guarantee of a reasonable minimum standard of living for those who co-

operate with conditional welfare schemes Second the provision of real opportunities

so those involved participate in a productive manner that improves the quality of life

for both the individual concerned and the wider community Third a recognition that

other forms of contribution beyond paid work (eg informal care work) are valid

Forth the ldquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of productive

participationrdquo (White 2000 516) Fifth a society must ensure that a reasonable level

of equal opportunity exists for all its members

Taking each of these conditions in turn it is possible to judge the extent to which New

Labourrsquos welfare reforms could be seen as reasonable An element of New Labourrsquos

approach has been to improve certain benefits - eg child benefit childrenrsquos

allowances for those income supportincome related JSA - (rf Lister 2001) and also

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

23

to introduce a system of tax credits lsquoto make work payrsquo A minimum income

guarantee of pound179 per week and help with child care cost for lone parents working 16

hours plus per week are also part of the Job Centre plus initiative (Blair 2002)

However whether or not the lsquoenhancedrsquo benefits offered to participants offer a

reasonable standard of living is more contentious

Assessing Whitersquos second condition concerning the need to provide real opportunities

that enhance both the individual and wider society is also complicated The 125

million people helped back into work since the New Deals began (Blair 2002) are not

to be dismissed lightly but other evidence is less positive Certain commentators have

suggested that the New Deals may not be as successful as they at first appear and

make strong arguments that industry and capital rather than unemployed peoplelone

parents are the real beneficiaries of the New Deals (Grover and Stewart 2000 Gray

2001 Prideaux 2001) Peck (2001) also notes that job entry rates for the New Deal to

March 2000 were modest with overall only a third of participants leaving to enter

paid work He also argues that many of those who leave the New Deal become

trapped in lsquocontingent employmentrsquo ie they continually move from one short term

low paid insecure job to another

The UK governmentrsquos own research also indicates some strong reservations about the

effectiveness of its chosen approach Only 27 of companies participating in the

lsquoOnersquo scheme recruited lone parents to their workforce with even less (20) taking on

the long-term unemployed People with mental or physical impairments fared

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

24

considerably worse6 (DSS 2001) More recently the Adult Learning Inspectorate (a

government agency) issued a damning appraisal of the New Deal for Young People

The recruitment figures noted for this scheme for the four years up to 2001 appear

positive7

but the report highlights some serious shortcomings Sixty percent of the

training for young adults provided by either the government or companies involved is

condemned as inadequate Similarly although full-time education and training was

the most popular option with recruits (40 of 18-24 year olds) only 26 of those

participating got a job and 31 a qualification (ALI 2002) The aim is for all trainees

to achieve both by the end of their one year course

A number of studies have noted the potential positive effects of policies that

encourage lone parents into the paid labour market but simultaneously they have

emphasised that the provision of quality support and educationtraining schemes and

help with childcare are vitally important (Heron et al 2002 Bradshaw 1996) The

government appears to endorse these findings and as previously noted sets out less

stringent requirements for the receipt of benefits by lone parents However in making

it clear that in future lone parents will be expected to enter the PLM the government is

implying that the contribution that they make as informal carers outside the PLM is an

inadequate basis on which to make a claim for public support (Gray 2001 Levitas

1998) It would appear that the third condition required by White for the legitimate

6 8 of participating employers recruited people with physical impairments 5 with mental

impairments (DSS 2001)

7 Of the four options available 112700 young people went into full-time educationtraining 52500

into government subsidised employment ndash 60 of whom went onto unsubsidised employment 60000

to voluntary sector and 56000 joined the environment task force (ALI 2002)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

25

application of a reciprocity principle the recognition of forms of contribution outside

the PLM remains unsatisfied

Whitersquos fourth condition the lsquouniversal enforcement of the minimum standard of

productive participationrsquo echoes Giddens (1998) declaration that the new

rightsresponsibilities rule must be evenly and universally applied Although such

even handed thinking is commendable it fails to reflect reality (Goodin 2000) In

relation to the social element of citizenship it is largely the rights of poor people that

are being reduced whilst simultaneously the attendant responsibilities required to

access those rights are being increased (Dwyer 2002 2000 1998) As for the final

contingency required ie a reasonable level of equality of opportunity for all members

of British society the government by its own admission recognises the limits of

contemporary meritocracy in the UK The Treasury as Deacon (2002b) notes

believes that the opportunities available to citizens ldquoare determined by who their

parents were rather than their own talents and effortsrdquo (HM Treasury 1999 31)

Noting a lsquodraconian reformrsquo of work based social security payments across the OECD

Goodin (2000) is keen to challenge the legitimacy of the imposition of conditionality

by questioning the principles used to support recent reforms Dismissing arguments

that people implicitly consent to a rewriting of the welfare contract that exists between

the individual citizen and the state Goodin notes that this argument falls down on two

levels At the clientcaseworker level he argues that such contracts are one sided In

effect the coercioncompulsion of the user is couched as consent Consent implies a

notion of choice and given that people have real needs for their benefits the element of

choice is missing from the process At the lsquomacro levelrsquo it is often stated that there is a

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

26

wider communal agreement to the idea of a new highly conditional welfare

settlement However it is politicians not users who are ldquoby their own admission

tearing up the old social contracthellipdemanding more of the poorhellip[and] unilaterally

altering the terms of the contractrdquo (Goodin 2000 5) The reciprocity principle is also

dismissed as seriously flawed As Goodin notes the obligations that we have to each

other should be more properly regarded as mutual rather than reciprocal

We each have obligations to the other but those obligations are independent of

one another Consequently my obligations toward you remain in force even

after you have defaulted on yours to me (Goodin 2000 8)

Why he asks if we accept a duty of care for criminals who have committed terrible

crimes should we be allowed to renege on our duty to support certain fellow citizens

who are not in the PLM or who behave in what is deemed to be an irresponsible

manner Whitersquos (2000) assertion that in certain circumstances conditionality can be

justified on paternalistic grounds is similarly dismissed Goodin believes that

unemployment is largely due to wider structural factors rather than individual failings

that limit peoplersquos ability to engage with the PLM lsquoWeakrsquo paternalism misses the

point It implies a sort of addiction to idleness that is generally not there lsquoStrongrsquo

paternalism - based on the idea that work is good for you so wersquore going to make you

do it ndash is undermined by the fact that we donrsquot compel the idle rich to work with the

same vigour that is reserved for poor people

In the UK the New Labour government is distancing itself from the notion of welfare

rights and increasingly embracing in both principle and practice the idea that public

welfare provisions are conditional entitlements This further diminishes the limited

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

27

equality that the citizenship of the British PWWS promised This diminution of

welfare rights will have the greatest negative effect on those most in need

Conclusions

A principle of conditionality already underpins New Labourrsquos employment policy It

is also an increasingly important tool in the management of social housing tenants

Emerging policies and debate centred on applying sanctions to the housing and child

benefits of irresponsible parents serves to illustrate several important points First the

ideological distance that New Labour has travelled in a relatively short time Less

than a decade ago the Labour Party was opposed to workfare type unemployment

schemes In 2002 a New Labour Prime Minister was seriously considering the

removal of child benefit in certain (extreme) circumstances If Blairs rhetoric ever

becomes reality and the removalreduction of child benefit rights from parents of

persistent truants becomes policy it needs to be considered that whilst theoretically

the regulations will be universal in application their punitive effect will be selectively

felt Because child benefit remains for good reasons a benefit routinely paid to

mothers it will largely be women (and children) rather than men who are denied

welfare Similarly because removing pound1550 per week from an unemployed lone

mother whose child persistently truants is qualitatively different from applying the

same sanction to a middle class dual earning couple it will be poor women and

children who will suffer the most

Second conditionality lays bare some of an inherent contradiction at the heart of the

New Labourrsquos welfare project It is a stated aim of the present administration to

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

28

challenge welfare dependency but as Grover and Stewart (2000) note only certain

types of dependency are deemed to be problematic

Obviously for Labourrsquos true believers having a job which only exists because of

some scheme of subsidy and using subsidised nursery places for onersquos children

is not part of benefit dependency whereas looking after onersquos own children at

home on benefit is dependency (248)

Third emergent policies and debates indicate a strengthening link between the social

welfare and criminal justice systems Regulation and social control has long been a

central aspect of state welfare (Bauman 1998) New Labour evidently sees it as

entirely appropriate to use welfare sanctions as an adjunct of the legal system in order

to enforce responsible behaviour

Recognising our wider responsibilities and respecting the rights of others to live in

peace are central to any notion of citizenship Governments however are wrong to

place a principle of conditionality at the heart of their welfare state reforms As

Douglas Hurd (British Conservative Home Secretary 1985-1989) rather ironically

given the position he was defending pointed out ldquocompulsion by the state implies not

the fulfilment but the absence or failure of personal responsibilityrdquo (Hurd 1988 16)

The wider shift towards lsquoactiveThird Wayrsquo welfare states is an attempt by Western

governments to renegotiate the welfare deal between citizen and the state Rights are

conditional on the acceptance of attendant individual responsibilities This represents

a significant qualitative shift away from the public welfare envisaged in the PWWS

built around notions of need and entitlement On one level the changes outlined in the

paper may be seen as incremental (hence the title of lsquocreeping conditionalityrsquo) but

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

29

such changes are significant They illustrate a more substantial shift in the principles

that underpin state welfare provision (Cox 1998 Taylor-Gooby 2002)

Bibliography

ALI (2002) Qualifications 200226 Annual Report of the Chief Inspector Coventry

Adult Learning Inspectorate

Bauhn Per (1997) ldquoThe justification of welfare rightsrdquo in Peter Koslowski and

Andreas Follesdal [eds] (1997) Ethics in public service Berlin Springer Verlag

277- 288

Bauman Zygmund (1998) Work Consumerism and the New Poor Buckingham Open

University Press

Beacuteland Daniel Vergniolle de Chantel Franccedilois and Waddan Alex (2001) lsquoThird

way social policy Clintonrsquos legacyrsquo Policy and Politics 30(1) 19-30

Blair Tony (1998) The Third Way New Politics for a New century London The

Fabian Society

Blair Tony (2002) Speech on Welfare Reform London 11602 available at

httpwwwnumber-10govukoutputPage5292asp (61303)

30

Blunkett David (2000) Skills for Life The National Strategy for Improving Adult

Literacy and Numeracy Skills London Department for Education and Employment

Bivand Paul (2001) lsquoNew Deal sanctionsrsquo Working Brief 121 London Centre for

Social and Economic Inclusion

Bradshaw Jonathan (1996) Lone mothers and work Findings York Joseph Rowntree

Foundation

Carvel John (2001) lsquoViolent patients may be refused carersquo The Guardian 281201

9

Card Pauline (2001) lsquoManaging anti-social behaviour ndash inclusion or exclusionrsquo in

David Cowan and Alex Marsh [eds] (2001) Two Steps Forward Housing Policy into

the Millennium Bristol Policy Press 201- 219

Cox Robert Henry (1998) lsquoThe consequences of welfare reform How conceptions of

social rights are changingrsquo Journal of Social Policy 27(1) 1-16

CPAG (2002) lsquoGovernment rethink on sanctionsrsquo Campaigns Newsletter London

Child Poverty Action Group 241

Deacon Alan (1994) lsquoJustifying workfare The historical context of the workfare

debatesrsquo in Michael White [Ed] (1994) Unemployment and Public Policy in a

Changing Labour Market London Public Services Institute 53-63

31

Deacon Alan (2002a) Perspectives on Welfare Ideas Ideologies and Policy Debates

Buckingham Open University Press

Deacon Alan (2002b) lsquoEchoes of Sir Keith New Labour and the cycle of

disadvantagersquo Benefits 10(3) 179-185

Dean Hartley (2002) Welfare Rights and Social Policy Harlow Pearson Education

DoH (2002a) Withholding Treatment from Violent and Abusive Patients Resource

Guide London Department of Health available at

httpwwwnhsukzerotolerancewh_treatmentindexhtm (82002)

DoH (2002b) Healthy Start Proposals for Reform of the welfare Food Scheme

London Department of Health

DoH (2000) lsquoIntroduction of the Sure Start maternity grantrsquo Letter from the Chief

Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer London Department of Health

Driver Stephen and Martell Luke (1998) New Labour Politics after Thatcherism

Cambridge Polity Press

DSS (2001) lsquoRecruiting benefit claimants a survey of employers in ONE pilot areasrsquo

Research Report no 139 London Department of Social Security

31

Deacon Alan (2002a) Perspectives on Welfare Ideas Ideologies and Policy Debates

Buckingham Open University Press

Deacon Alan (2002b) lsquoEchoes of Sir Keith New Labour and the cycle of

disadvantagersquo Benefits 10(3) 179-185

Dean Hartley (2002) Welfare Rights and Social Policy Harlow Pearson Education

DoH (2002a) Withholding Treatment from Violent and Abusive Patients Resource

Guide London Department of Health available at

httpwwwnhsukzerotolerancewh_treatmentindexhtm (82002)

DoH (2002b) Healthy Start Proposals for Reform of the welfare Food Scheme

London Department of Health

DoH (2000) lsquoIntroduction of the Sure Start maternity grantrsquo Letter from the Chief

Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer London Department of Health

Driver Stephen and Martell Luke (1998) New Labour Politics after Thatcherism

Cambridge Polity Press

DSS (2001) lsquoRecruiting benefit claimants a survey of employers in ONE pilot areasrsquo

Research Report no 139 London Department of Social Security

32

DTLR (2002) Tackling Anti-social Tenants A Consultation Paper London

Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions

DWP (2004) lsquoReport on consultation on sanctions against anti-social behaviour

publishedrsquo Press Release27 January 2004 London Department for Work and

Pensions Available at

httpwwwdwpgovukmediacentrepressreleases2004janfram2701-sanctionasp

(01292004)

DWP (2002a) Jobseekerrsquos Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry May 2002

London Department for Work and Pensions

DWP (2002b) lsquoSure Start Maternity Grants Request for informationrsquo Report to

enquiry from Peter Dwyer London Information and Analysis Directorate London

Department of Work and Pensions

Dwyer Peter (1998) lsquoConditional citizens Welfare rights and responsibilities in the

late 1990rsquosrsquo Critical Social Policy 18(4) 519-543

Dwyer Peter (2000) Welfare Rights and Responsibilities Contesting Social

Citizenship Bristol Policy Press

Dwyer Peter (2002) lsquoMaking sense of social citizenship some user views on welfare

rights and responsibilitiesrsquo Critical Social Policy 22 (2) 273-299

33

Etzioni Amitai (1997) The New Golden Rule Community and Morality in a

Democratic Society London Profile Books

Etzioni Amitai (2000) The Third Way to a Good Society London Demos

Field Frank (2002) lsquoFirst take their benefits then their childrenrsquo The Sunday

Telegraph 18502 20

Finch Naomi (2002) lsquoNew Labourrsquos value laden social policyrsquo Paper to the Social

Policy Association Conference University of Teeside July 2002

Flint John (2002) lsquoReturn of the governors citizenship and the governance of

neighbourhood disorder in the UKrsquo Citizenship Studies 6(3) 245-264

Freidman Milton (1962) Capitalism and Freedom Chicago University of Chicago

Press

Giddens Anthony (1994) Beyond Left and Right The Future of Radical Politics

Cambridge Polity Press

Giddens Anthony (1998) The Third Way The Renewal of Social Democracy

Cambridge Polity Press

Goodin Robert Edward (2000) lsquoPrinciples of welfare reform the OECD experiencersquo

Paper to the Conference on Welfare Reform Melbourne Institute November 2000

34

Goodin Robert Edward (2002) lsquoStructures of mutual obligationrsquo Journal of Social

Policy 31(4) 579-596

Gray Anne (2001) lsquoMaking work pay ndash devising the best strategy for lone parents in

Britainrsquo Journal of Social Policy 30(2) 189-207

Griffin James (2000) lsquoWelfare rightsrsquo The Journal of Ethics 4 27-43

Grover Chis and Stewart John (2000) Modernising social security Labour and itrsquos

welfare-to-work strategyrsquo Social Policy and Administration (34)3 235-252

Hansard (2002) Question in House of Lords from Earl Russell to the Parliamentary

Under-Secretary of State Department for Work and Pensions on Benefit Sanctions

Hansard 8th May 2002 column WA181 available at httpwwwparliamentthe-

stationery-oldhansrdpdvn1ds02text20508w03htm (82002)

Hayek Friedrich A (1944) The Road to Serfdom London Routledge Keegan and

Paul

Heron Emma Bennett Cinnamon Pearson Sarah Steill Bernadette and Yeandle

Sue (2002) lsquoMoving on up Motivations aspirations and barriers to paid employment

for lone parentsrsquo Paper to the Social Policy Association Conference University of

Teeside July 2002

34

Goodin Robert Edward (2002) lsquoStructures of mutual obligationrsquo Journal of Social

Policy 31(4) 579-596

Gray Anne (2001) lsquoMaking work pay ndash devising the best strategy for lone parents in

Britainrsquo Journal of Social Policy 30(2) 189-207

Griffin James (2000) lsquoWelfare rightsrsquo The Journal of Ethics 4 27-43

Grover Chis and Stewart John (2000) Modernising social security Labour and itrsquos

welfare-to-work strategyrsquo Social Policy and Administration (34)3 235-252

Hansard (2002) Question in House of Lords from Earl Russell to the Parliamentary

Under-Secretary of State Department for Work and Pensions on Benefit Sanctions

Hansard 8th May 2002 column WA181 available at httpwwwparliamentthe-

stationery-oldhansrdpdvn1ds02text20508w03htm (82002)

Hayek Friedrich A (1944) The Road to Serfdom London Routledge Keegan and

Paul

Heron Emma Bennett Cinnamon Pearson Sarah Steill Bernadette and Yeandle

Sue (2002) lsquoMoving on up Motivations aspirations and barriers to paid employment

for lone parentsrsquo Paper to the Social Policy Association Conference University of

Teeside July 2002

35

Heron Emma and Dwyer Peter (1999) lsquoDoing the right thingrsquo Labourrsquos attempt to

forge a new welfare deal between the individual and the statersquo Social Policy and

Administration 33(1) 91-104

HM Treasury (1999) Tackling Poverty and Extending Opportunity The

Modernisation of Britainrsquos Tax and Benefit System London Her Majestyrsquos Stationary

Office

Home Office (2003a) Anti-Social Behaviour Orders Statistics

httpwwwcrimereductiongovukasbos2htm (111203)

Home Office (2003b) Respect and Responsibility-Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social

Behaviour Cm 5778 London The Stationary Office

Hunter Chris (2001) lsquoAnti-social behaviour and housing can-law be the answerrsquo in

David Cowan and Alex Marsh [eds] (2001) op cit 221- 237

Hurd Douglas (1988) lsquoCitizenship in Tory democracyrsquo The New Statesman 42988

16

King Desmond (1999) In the Name of Liberalism Illiberal Social Policy in the

United States and Britain Oxford Oxford University Press

Labour Party (1997 Leading Britain into the future London Labour Party

36

Langan Mary (1998) lsquoRationing healthcarersquo in Langan M [ed] (1998) Welfare

needs rights and risks London RoutledgeOpen University Press 35-80

Levtias Ruth (1998) The Inclusive Society Social Exclusion and New Labour

Basingstoke Macmillan

Lister Ruth (1998) lsquoFrom equality to social exclusion New Labour and the welfare

statersquo Critical Social Policy 18(2) 215-225

Lister Ruth (2001) lsquoNew Labour a study in ambiguity from a position of

ambivalencersquo Critical Social Policy 21(4) 425-447

Lǿdemel Ivar and Trickey Heather (2000) lsquoAn Offer You Canrsquot Refusersquo Workfare in

International Perspective Bristol Policy Press

Marshall Thomas Herbert (1992) lsquoCitizenship and social classrsquo in Marshall T H

and Bottomore Tom (1992) Citizenship and Social Class London Pluto Press 3-

39

Mead Lawrence M (1986) Beyond Entitlement New York Free Press

Mead Lawrence M (1997) lsquoCitizenship and social policy T H Marshall and

povertyrsquo Social Philosophy and Social Policy 14(2) 197-230

Murray Charles (1984) Loosing Ground New York Basic Books

37

Nixon John Hunter Chris and Shayer Sarah (1999) The Use of Legal Remedies by

Social Landlords to Deal with Neighbour Nuisance Sheffield Centre for Regional

Economic and Social Research Paper no H8 Sheffield Hallam University

Nozick Robert (1995) lsquoDistributive justicersquo in Shlomo Avineri and Avner de-Shalit

[eds] Communitarianism and Individualism Oxford Oxford University Press 137-

150

OrsquoConnor James (1998) lsquoUS Social welfare policy the Reagan record and legacyrsquo

Journal of Social Policy 27(1) 37-61

Pierson Paul (1996) lsquoThe new politics of the welfare statersquo World Politics 49 143-

179

Pierson Paul (2001) [ed] The New Politics of the Welfare State Oxford Oxford

University Press

Peck Jamie (2001) lsquoJob Alert Shifts spins and statistics in welfare to work policyrsquo

Benefits 30 11-15

Powell Martin [ed] (1999) New Labour New Welfare State The Third Way in

British Social Policy Bristol The Policy Press

38

Powell Martin (2002) lsquoThe hidden history of social citizenshiprsquo Citizenship Studies

6(3) 229-244

Prideaux Simon (2001) lsquoNew Labour old functionalism The underlying

contradictions of welfare reform in the UK and the USrsquo Social Policy and

Administration 35(1) 85-115

Rees Anthony M (1995) lsquoThe other T H Marshallrsquo Journal of Social Policy 24(4)

341-362

Sample Ruth (1998) lsquoLibertarian rights and welfare rightsrsquo Social Theory and

Practice 24(3) 393-418

Selbourne David (1994) The Principle of Duty London Sinclair Stevenson

Smith Robert Stirling Tamsin Papps Pauline Evans Angela and Rowlands Robert

(2001) Allocations and exclusions the impact of new approaches to allocating social

housing London Shelter

SSAC (2002) Social Security Advisory Committee Fifteenth Report April 2001-March

2002 London Her Majestyrsquos Stationary Office

Taylor-Gooby Peter (2002) lsquoThe silver age of the welfare state perspectives on

resiliencersquo Journal of Social Policy 31(4) 596-622

39

Treolar Paul (2001) lsquoCompulsion creeps uprsquo Welfare Rights Bulletin 164 October

London Child Poverty Action Group available at

httpwwwcpagorgukcrowrbwrb164compulsionhtm (111101)

Van Oorschot Wim (2000) lsquoWho should get what and why On deservingness and

the conditionality of solidarity among the publicrsquo Policy and Politics 28(1) 33-48

Walters William (1997) lsquoThe active society new designs for social policyrsquo Policy

and Politics 25(3) 221-234

Weaver R Kent (1986) lsquoThe politics of blame avoidancersquo Journal of Public Policy

6(4) 371-398

Wetherley Paul (2001) lsquoThe reform of welfare and the way we live now a critique of

Giddens and the Third Wayrsquo Contemporary Politics (7)2 149-170

White Stuart (2000) lsquoReview article social rights and social contract ndash political

theory and the new welfare politicsrsquo British Journal of Political Science 30 507-532

Williams Fiona (1999) lsquoGood enough principles for welfarersquo Journal of Social

Policy 28(4) 667-688

37

Nixon John Hunter Chris and Shayer Sarah (1999) The Use of Legal Remedies by

Social Landlords to Deal with Neighbour Nuisance Sheffield Centre for Regional

Economic and Social Research Paper no H8 Sheffield Hallam University

Nozick Robert (1995) lsquoDistributive justicersquo in Shlomo Avineri and Avner de-Shalit

[eds] Communitarianism and Individualism Oxford Oxford University Press 137-

150

OrsquoConnor James (1998) lsquoUS Social welfare policy the Reagan record and legacyrsquo

Journal of Social Policy 27(1) 37-61

Pierson Paul (1996) lsquoThe new politics of the welfare statersquo World Politics 49 143-

179

Pierson Paul (2001) [ed] The New Politics of the Welfare State Oxford Oxford

University Press

Peck Jamie (2001) lsquoJob Alert Shifts spins and statistics in welfare to work policyrsquo

Benefits 30 11-15

Powell Martin [ed] (1999) New Labour New Welfare State The Third Way in

British Social Policy Bristol The Policy Press

38

Powell Martin (2002) lsquoThe hidden history of social citizenshiprsquo Citizenship Studies

6(3) 229-244

Prideaux Simon (2001) lsquoNew Labour old functionalism The underlying

contradictions of welfare reform in the UK and the USrsquo Social Policy and

Administration 35(1) 85-115

Rees Anthony M (1995) lsquoThe other T H Marshallrsquo Journal of Social Policy 24(4)

341-362

Sample Ruth (1998) lsquoLibertarian rights and welfare rightsrsquo Social Theory and

Practice 24(3) 393-418

Selbourne David (1994) The Principle of Duty London Sinclair Stevenson

Smith Robert Stirling Tamsin Papps Pauline Evans Angela and Rowlands Robert

(2001) Allocations and exclusions the impact of new approaches to allocating social

housing London Shelter

SSAC (2002) Social Security Advisory Committee Fifteenth Report April 2001-March

2002 London Her Majestyrsquos Stationary Office

Taylor-Gooby Peter (2002) lsquoThe silver age of the welfare state perspectives on

resiliencersquo Journal of Social Policy 31(4) 596-622

39

Treolar Paul (2001) lsquoCompulsion creeps uprsquo Welfare Rights Bulletin 164 October

London Child Poverty Action Group available at

httpwwwcpagorgukcrowrbwrb164compulsionhtm (111101)

Van Oorschot Wim (2000) lsquoWho should get what and why On deservingness and

the conditionality of solidarity among the publicrsquo Policy and Politics 28(1) 33-48

Walters William (1997) lsquoThe active society new designs for social policyrsquo Policy

and Politics 25(3) 221-234

Weaver R Kent (1986) lsquoThe politics of blame avoidancersquo Journal of Public Policy

6(4) 371-398

Wetherley Paul (2001) lsquoThe reform of welfare and the way we live now a critique of

Giddens and the Third Wayrsquo Contemporary Politics (7)2 149-170

White Stuart (2000) lsquoReview article social rights and social contract ndash political

theory and the new welfare politicsrsquo British Journal of Political Science 30 507-532

Williams Fiona (1999) lsquoGood enough principles for welfarersquo Journal of Social

Policy 28(4) 667-688

38

Powell Martin (2002) lsquoThe hidden history of social citizenshiprsquo Citizenship Studies

6(3) 229-244

Prideaux Simon (2001) lsquoNew Labour old functionalism The underlying

contradictions of welfare reform in the UK and the USrsquo Social Policy and

Administration 35(1) 85-115

Rees Anthony M (1995) lsquoThe other T H Marshallrsquo Journal of Social Policy 24(4)

341-362

Sample Ruth (1998) lsquoLibertarian rights and welfare rightsrsquo Social Theory and

Practice 24(3) 393-418

Selbourne David (1994) The Principle of Duty London Sinclair Stevenson

Smith Robert Stirling Tamsin Papps Pauline Evans Angela and Rowlands Robert

(2001) Allocations and exclusions the impact of new approaches to allocating social

housing London Shelter

SSAC (2002) Social Security Advisory Committee Fifteenth Report April 2001-March

2002 London Her Majestyrsquos Stationary Office

Taylor-Gooby Peter (2002) lsquoThe silver age of the welfare state perspectives on

resiliencersquo Journal of Social Policy 31(4) 596-622

39

Treolar Paul (2001) lsquoCompulsion creeps uprsquo Welfare Rights Bulletin 164 October

London Child Poverty Action Group available at

httpwwwcpagorgukcrowrbwrb164compulsionhtm (111101)

Van Oorschot Wim (2000) lsquoWho should get what and why On deservingness and

the conditionality of solidarity among the publicrsquo Policy and Politics 28(1) 33-48

Walters William (1997) lsquoThe active society new designs for social policyrsquo Policy

and Politics 25(3) 221-234

Weaver R Kent (1986) lsquoThe politics of blame avoidancersquo Journal of Public Policy

6(4) 371-398

Wetherley Paul (2001) lsquoThe reform of welfare and the way we live now a critique of

Giddens and the Third Wayrsquo Contemporary Politics (7)2 149-170

White Stuart (2000) lsquoReview article social rights and social contract ndash political

theory and the new welfare politicsrsquo British Journal of Political Science 30 507-532

Williams Fiona (1999) lsquoGood enough principles for welfarersquo Journal of Social

Policy 28(4) 667-688

39

Treolar Paul (2001) lsquoCompulsion creeps uprsquo Welfare Rights Bulletin 164 October

London Child Poverty Action Group available at

httpwwwcpagorgukcrowrbwrb164compulsionhtm (111101)

Van Oorschot Wim (2000) lsquoWho should get what and why On deservingness and

the conditionality of solidarity among the publicrsquo Policy and Politics 28(1) 33-48

Walters William (1997) lsquoThe active society new designs for social policyrsquo Policy

and Politics 25(3) 221-234

Weaver R Kent (1986) lsquoThe politics of blame avoidancersquo Journal of Public Policy

6(4) 371-398

Wetherley Paul (2001) lsquoThe reform of welfare and the way we live now a critique of

Giddens and the Third Wayrsquo Contemporary Politics (7)2 149-170

White Stuart (2000) lsquoReview article social rights and social contract ndash political

theory and the new welfare politicsrsquo British Journal of Political Science 30 507-532

Williams Fiona (1999) lsquoGood enough principles for welfarersquo Journal of Social

Policy 28(4) 667-688